Home | DEMOLITION OF UNESCO HERITAGES BY ISIS IN SYRIA AND TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN | LIST OF ALL TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS OF THE WORLD | A GRAPHICAL TIME LINE OF US PRESIDENTS | GUN CULTURE IN USA MUST END | LIST OF ALL SEARCH ENGINES ON THE INTERNET | VISIT ALL MWCA ANTI-COMMUNIST WEBSITES | A HOMELESS MAN SHOT DEAD BY US POLICE | JORDANIAN PILOT BURNT ALIVE BY ISIS | NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR RELIGIONS | EMERGENCE OF A NEW WORLD IN FRANCE | NATIONAL FREEDOM RALLY IN FRANCE | INDEPENDENCE OF TIBET , MACAU AND HONGKOMG | LIST OF TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS OF THE WORLD | WAR AGAINST TERRORISM | FACTS ABOUT UKRAINE | MIKHAIL GORBACHEV | WORLD HERITAGE SITES | LIFE HISTORY OF MWCA CHIEF FROM HIS OWN MOUTH | LAST FIVE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD STILL UNDER COMMUNIST RULE | ANTI-COMMUNISM IN USA | FORCIBLE ANNEXATION OF A PART OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY BY RUSSIA | SEND FEEDBACK TO MWCA INSTITUTE | MWCA AGAINST NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES | A MILESTONE IN THE HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY IN INDIA | CHINESE OCCUPATION OF TIBET | INDEPENDENCE OF TIBET | WEBWORLD SEARCH | EVILS OF COMMUNISM | AMERICANS BATTLING COMMUNISM | FALL OF COMMUNISM | A LIST OF ANTI-COMMUNIST ORGANISATIONS OF THE WORLD | LIST OF CHINESE DISSIDENTS | ROADMAP FOR DEMOCRACY | ANTI-COMMUNISM IN USA | ANTI-COMMUNISM | FACTS ABOUT ISRAEL | BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES | ANTI-COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES | FOREIGN STOCK BROKERS | ONLINE TRADING | STOCK MARKETING WEBSITES | STOCK EXCHANGE INFORMATIONS | BUSINESS AND SOCIETY | AGRICULTURE AND AFFORESTATION | ACCOUNTING | PROPERTY WEBSITES | CHARITABLE WEBSITES | WEBSITE LINKS | Favourite links | BUSINESS WEBSITES | HINDU RELIGIOUS WEBSITES

http://businessindia40.tripod.com

                  Birth of Jesus Christ

               Story of birth of Jesus Christ

A long time ago, in the town of Nazareth, lived a young woman named Mary.  Mary did her chores, was kind to others, and loved God very much.  She was engaged to be married to Joseph, who was a carpenter.

One day, while Mary was at home cleaning her room, an angel suddenly appeared.  Before Mary could say anything the angel told Mary that she was favored by God, and that God was with her.

Mary was surprised.  She was trying not to be afraid, but she had never seen an angel before.  After all, Mary was just a regular lady like you or I.  Why was this angel visiting her?  What did the angel want?

The angel quickly tried to reassure Mary. "Do not be afraid!" the angel said.  "God has found favor with you.  You will have a baby boy, and are to give him the name Jesus."

Mary was confused; she was not yet married to Joseph, so how could she have a baby?  The angel thought that this might concern Mary so he said, "The Holy Spirit will perform a miracle, and because of this your baby will be called the Son of God."

To Mary's surprise, the angel had more exciting news: "Even your cousin Elizabeth is going to have a son in her old age.  Many thought that she couldn't have children, but she is already pregnant. Nothing is impossible with God."

Mary couldn't believe what she was hearing; she didn't know what to say.  She realized that she was trembling, and knelt down.  When she was finally able to speak she said, "I am the Lord's servant, and I hope everything you have said will come true."

Then the angel disappeared, and Mary was left alone.

Soon after, Joseph found out that Mary was going to have a baby.  Joseph was confused and upset by this, but an angel came to him in a dream and said, "Joseph do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.  The child Mary is going to have is God's son, and you are to give him the name Jesus."

When Joseph woke up he remembered what the angel had said.  He knew that everything was okay, and he wasn't upset anymore.

In those days, the government decided that they should count everyone that lived in that area of the world.  So Joseph had to take Mary to his town of Bethlehem to register.

It took Mary and Joseph a long time to get to Bethlehem.  They didn't have cars back then, so it probably took them a lot longer to get there.  This was very tiring for Mary because she was soon going to have a baby.

When they reached the town, all the hotels were full and there was nowhere that they could stay.  Finally, someone felt bad for them and offered them a place to stay.

The Bible doesn't say for sure where they stayed but most people think that they stayed in a small barn where animals were kept.  In any case, doesn't it seem strange that Jesus, the King of the Jews wasn't born in a fancy palace or even a hospital?

Mary and Joseph were thankful that they at least had a place to lie down.  It was warm, and there was plenty of straw to lay on.

That night an exciting, wonderful thing happened: Mary and Joseph had a baby!  But this wasn't just any baby, he was Baby Jesus!  The creator of the whole world, the King of Kings, and the one who would save the world.

The little baby boy fell asleep in Mary's arms. She wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger on some clean straw.

Mary and Joseph soon fell asleep; they were so glad to have this special baby join their family.

A long time ago, in the town of Nazareth, lived a young woman named Mary.  Mary did her chores, was kind to others, and loved God very much.  She was engaged to be married to Joseph, who was a carpenter.

One day, while Mary was at home cleaning her room, an angel suddenly appeared.  Before Mary could say anything the angel told Mary that she was favored by God, and that God was with her.

Mary was surprised.  She was trying not to be afraid, but she had never seen an angel before.  After all, Mary was just a regular lady like you or I.  Why was this angel visiting her?  What did the angel want?

The angel quickly tried to reassure Mary. "Do not be afraid!" the angel said.  "God has found favor with you.  You will have a baby boy, and are to give him the name Jesus."

Mary was confused; she was not yet married to Joseph, so how could she have a baby?  The angel thought that this might concern Mary so he said, "The Holy Spirit will perform a miracle, and because of this your baby will be called the Son of God."

To Mary's surprise, the angel had more exciting news: "Even your cousin Elizabeth is going to have a son in her old age.  Many thought that she couldn't have children, but she is already pregnant. Nothing is impossible with God."

Mary couldn't believe what she was hearing; she didn't know what to say.  She realized that she was trembling, and knelt down.  When she was finally able to speak she said, "I am the Lord's servant, and I hope everything you have said will come true."

Then the angel disappeared, and Mary was left alone.

Soon after, Joseph found out that Mary was going to have a baby.  Joseph was confused and upset by this, but an angel came to him in a dream and said, "Joseph do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.  The child Mary is going to have is God's son, and you are to give him the name Jesus."

When Joseph woke up he remembered what the angel had said.  He knew that everything was okay, and he wasn't upset anymore.

In those days, the government decided that they should count everyone that lived in that area of the world.  So Joseph had to take Mary to his town of Bethlehem to register.

It took Mary and Joseph a long time to get to Bethlehem.  They didn't have cars back then, so it probably took them a lot longer to get there.  This was very tiring for Mary because she was soon going to have a baby.

When they reached the town, all the hotels were full and there was nowhere that they could stay.  Finally, someone felt bad for them and offered them a place to stay.

The Bible story about the birth of baby JesusThe Bible doesn't say for sure where they stayed but most people think that they stayed in a small barn where animals were kept.  In any case, doesn't it seem strange that Jesus, the King of the Jews wasn't born in a fancy palace or even a hospital?

Mary and Joseph were thankful that they at least had a place to lie down.  It was warm, and there was plenty of straw to lay on.

That night an exciting, wonderful thing happened: Mary and Joseph had a baby!  But this wasn't just any baby, he was Baby Jesus!  The creator of the whole world, the King of Kings, and the one who would save the world.

The little baby boy fell asleep in Mary's arms. She wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger on some clean straw.

Mary and Joseph soon fell asleep; they were so glad to have this special baby join their family.

 

              
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REASONS FOR THE FALL OF COMMUNISM AROUND THE WORLD
The fall of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was more than a political event. The powerful bond between economics and politics that was the integral characteristic of the state socialist system created a situation that was unique for the successor states of the Soviet Union. The Communist regime was so ingrain in every aspect of Soviet life that the Russian people were left with little democratic traditions. . Russia faces the seemingly impracticable task of economic liberalization and democratization. This is combined with the fact that the new administration must address human rights issues, such as living conditions and the supply of staple goods in this new form of administration makes the prospect of a full democratic switch seemingly impossible. To fully understand the scope of the transference of governing power in the Russian Federation, one must first look at the old Socialist/Communist regime, to see the circumstances under which it fell gives a good view of why this transference is almost impossible. In the beginning Communism seemed to the people of Russia as a utopian ideal. The promise of the elimination of classes, of guaranteed employment , "The creation of a comprehensive social security and welfare system for all citizens that would end the misery of workers once and for all." Lenin's own interpretation of the Marxian critique was that to achieve Communism there would first have to be a socialist dictatorship to first suppress any dissent or protest. Through coercive tactics this new government seized power and in 1917 Lenin came to power. Under his "rule" the Soviet Union underwent radical changes in it's economic doctrines adopting a mixed which was termed the New Economic Policy also referred to as NEP, this economy called for some private ownership of the means of production, but the majority of industry was made property of the people, which meant the majority of the means of production was controlled by the government. Lenin's government made ma! ny achievements. It ended a long civil war against the remnants of the old Czarist military system and established institutions in government. During this period, and in fact throughout the majority of the Communist rule, censorship and the subordination of interest groups such as trade unions was imposed to stop dissension and increase conformity to the new governments policies. Lenin died in 1924, and was quickly followed by Joseph Stalin as head of the Soviet Communist Party, the oppressive reforms started by Lenin were continued and at length became completely totalitarian. Stalin became the most powerful man in Russia. He controlled to bulk of all the political power and with that he started a ruthless campaign of removing all opposition to the Communist rule. During this period called the "Great Purge" Stalin systemically executed anyone who stood in his path. Millions of people were arrested and either harassed or killed. The economic status of the Soviet Union was yet again changed and the entire system became controlled by the government. All private ownership ended. A mass program of industrialization was commenced, and the strength of the Soviet Military was substantially increased. The citizens during this period endured great hardship. Agricultural production output diminished resulting in food shortages, these shortages were enha! nce by the mass exportation of food, this was done to pay for industrial imports. Stalin also put the production of what he called production goods such as manufacturing machinery over basic consumer goods such as clothes and other staples. During this period the Second World War broke out and drained most of what was left of the already impoverished state. Yet after the war national unity was strengthened as well is the Soviet military machine. The Soviet Union became a super power, the U.S. being the only country more powerful than it. After the death of Stalin in 1953 Nikita Khrushchev became First Secretary of the Communist party. Stalin's death marked the end of supreme power for the head of the party, and Khrushchev condemned Stalin's actions as unnecessary and harmful to the process of moving the Socialist government to it's goal of pure Communism. During this period the public was given a say in the government, albeit an extremely minor one, and the judicial system eased it's aggressiveness allowing a defendant a better chance of defending themselves. Khrushchev concerned himself with bettering the plight of the individual, attempting to increase the supply of food and making goods such as home appliances, making automobiles somewhat available, and providing more housing. A new policy of efficiency and quality control was brought in. Leadership was somewhat decentralized to allow common managers and directors more power to run their production units. Although Krushchev started a process of sligh! t reform he was dismissed due to in part a massive shortage of grain and dairy products, and the fact that he had started to seize more power and "His efforts to streamline party organizations produced chaos and conflict among party administrators." He was also blamed for the Russia "defeat" during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and of not accomplishing anything toward the reunification of Germany under East German rule. After the ousting of Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev became the Soviet Communist Party Secretary General in October of 1964. Under his administration the majority of the decentralization of power was destroyed bringing a centralized form of control back into effect. Krushchev's denouncing of Stalin's policies was criticized and slowly some of Stalin's political disciplinary policies were restored. Stalin was named a war hero. There began an outright attack on dissidents from the literary and scientific community. During this time there was an inefficient use land, labour and resources which resulted in an economic slackening. In this time what was supposed to ultimately be a classless society became classed as bureaucrats were paid for loyalty with material wealth, allowing them a better standard of living, because of this public interests were placed secondary to personal gain. The 1980's saw a dramatic drop in the Soviet citizens already impoverished standard of living. ! This caused strikes and public outcry against the administration which threatened the stability of the Soviet Union. The people were angry at the fact that the Communist Party had not lived up to what it had promised which was in return for their obedience they would receive employment , free health care, and a level of comfort. March 1985 marks a turning point in the Communist rule of Russia. Mikhail Gorbachev is elevated to the position of General Secretary. He is aware of the current social upheaval occurring and that change must occur if Communism is to survive. He begins a program called "Perestroika" which was the organizational restructuring of the Soviet economy and government apparatus. Gorbachev discovers that this change will depend on other changes, among others a more tolerant and open political environment , more public influence over governmental and military institutions. This called for major long term change of the political system. He began a policy called "Glasnost" which emphasized openness with regard to discussion of social problems and shortcomings. The purpose of these reforms was to elevate the Soviet standard of living in order to reaffirm the citizenry's loyalties to the Communist party and to enable the rebirth of the Soviet economy and ideal. State control was lo! osened and individual initiative encouraged. He expanded the authority of the Soviet presidency and transferred power from the Communist party to popularly elected legislatures in the union republics. In international affairs, he withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan, normalized relations with China, signed a series of arms control agreements with U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. During this period of change strong Nationalistic opinion started in the republics of the Soviet Union causing major upheaval. In 1991, as the Soviet economy deteriorated, Gorbachev faced competing pressures from hard-line Communists, from free-market reformers, and from nationalists and secessionists seeking independence for their republics. The hard-liners, who included many top government officials, staged a coup in August, placing Gorbachev under house arrest, but within three days the reformers had restored Gorbachev to power. He immediately resigned as Communist party general se! cretary, suspended party activities, and placed reformers in charge of the military and KGB. After allowing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to become independent republics. Nationalist forces became stronger in the republics as the year went on. The USSR voted itself out of existence in December 1991, and Gorbachev resigned his position as president of the USSR. Under the Communist Regime there were immense social problems. In the period before Gorbachev all religion was dismissed. Although the citizens were still allowed to practice their religion it was made extremely difficult for them by the government and the official attitude towards religion was that it was a relic of the past and Atheism was encouraged. There was a substantial amount of alcoholism mostly due to the living and working conditions. There was also a substantial amount of crime. There was extreme discrimination against women. There was a strong sexist attitude and women found it hard to find decent employment, and most women were expected to also take care of household duties as well. Women were also very scarce in government. Relations among the different ethic grouped which lived within the Soviet Union were very tense and sometimes openly hostile. The fact that the Russian language was the language in which all political transactions had to occur in and it was encouraged to be learnt, with the purpose of trying to make a single Soviet culture made this tension even stronger. The education system in the Soviet Union also caused tension because it was set up around a motive to teach students to be obedient to the Communist Party and to be Atheist among other things. Also students were assigned jobs when they graduated and this caused considerable stress on them because they had to take the job assigned to them, and if it was an undesirable one it could ruin their chances for advancement in the future. This was such a tense issue that graduates were sometimes prone to commit suicide. The health care system was under funded. Most hospitals were under staffed and the equipment was outdated, medical supplies were also scarce. This lead to the gradual decrease of the life expectancy of a citizen. Poor standards of sanitation and public hygiene lead to an increased annual death rate and a drop in the birth rate. All of these factors in a way, lead to the disintegration of the Communist Regime, taking into account all of the social problems and the years of mismanagement of the countries resources, we can see why the economy slowed and citizen support for the government diminished. Boris Yeltsin was named President of Russia by the Russian Republic's Supreme Soviet in 1990. He immediately resigned from the Communist party and declared Russia's independence. In 1991 he became the first President of the Russian Republic by popular vote. He helped found the Commonwealth of Independent States, which ended any attempts to preserve the USSR. He moved to end state control of the economy, privatized most industries and among other things outlawed the Communist Party. Beginning in 1992 the conflict between Yeltsin and his political opponents intensified. Yeltsin suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the Russian Constitutional Court, chaired by Valeriy Zorkin. The court overturned Yeltsin's decree creating a Russian ministry of security and internal affairs and lifted portions of Yeltsin's ban on the Soviet Communist party. In 1993 the court repealed his ban on the National Salvation Front, a communist-nationalist organization that had called for Yeltsin's removal. In 1993 Yeltsin announced on television that he had issued a decree declaring special presidential rule. But when the decree was published there was no mention of special presidential powers. Vice President Aleksandr Rutskoy sharply criticized Yeltsin for issuing the decree and for using a referendum to gain popular approval of reform policies. Yeltsin asked Rutskoy to resign as vice president, and when Rutskoy refused, Yeltsin removed Rutskoy's powers of office, despite p! rotests by the Supreme Soviet. Yeltsin won the support of the majority of Russian voters who participated in the April 1993 referendum, but the referendum did little to end his power struggle with parliament. In September, Yeltsin attempted to break the power deadlock by dissolving parliament and calling for new parliamentary elections. "In turn, parliament voted to impeach Yeltsin and swore in Rutskoy as acting president. Led by Rutskoy and chairman of the Supreme Soviet Ruslan Khasbulatov, hundreds of legislators and anti-Yeltsin demonstrators occupied the parliament building in Moscow. On September 28 Yeltsin ordered troops to barricade the parliament building, and in the following week security forces, acting in support of Yeltsin, clashed with pro-parliamentary demonstrators, who were mainly hard-line Communists and nationalists. On October 4 Rutskoy and Khasbulatov surrendered. In February 1994 they were granted amnesty by the lower house of parliament, despite Yeltsin'! s opposition." In December 1994 Yeltsin sent Russian military forces into the region of Chechnya, which had declared its independence from Russia in 1991. Since that time Russia had made only minor military efforts to reclaim Chechnya. This use of military force is an example of the fact that true democracy can not exist in Russia, these tactics are Soviet-era coercive measures. During the bombing of Grozny Russian-speaking suffered as much as the natives. This was demonstrated the worst of the Yeltsin Regime. Yeltsin was using the war to expand his political base and appear as a strong leader. Over 20,000 civilians died during this conflict, which in a sense achieved nothing. The Russian economy has been put through sweeping reforms which have only proved to through it into disarray. This mainly due to the fact that because the Soviet government has no experience in Democratic/Capitalist styles of governing, and the 70 plus years of Communist rule has left a huge dent in the Russian economy. The old style of government has left behind a legacy of corruption, price distortions, inefficient public industries and financial instability. This, combined with the need for much more extensive political reform makes this task almost impossible. The process of democratization of Russia occurred to quickly. This was done in the hopes that the fast privatization of industry would hinder any chance of re-nationalizing the economy, and basically forcing this new change. At the same time privatization has contributed greatly to the popular belief that this new system is unjust. State assets were distributed disproportionately to insiders, to people willin! g to circumvent the law, and in some case to criminals. Official corruption and the lack of enforced laws and clearly defined property laws has lead to public dissension. One of Yeltsin's greatest mistakes was moving economic reform ahead so quickly while not addressing the need for immense political reform at the same time. The Russian economy is in disarray, and the standard of living for the average citizen is as low if not lower than during the Communist rule. This had bred many social problems which, in effect, mirror those of the Communist administration. Religious and ethnic animosity and the lack of proper education in this new political and economic system has lead to public discontent and a rise in the alcoholism problem. There has been recent improvements in the distribution of wealth. There have been improvements in the privatization process, especially in the building sector, this could bring the expansion of small-scale property ownership, which is also an important step towards private ownership. There is also a stronger entrepreneurial spirit among lower class society. Yet with the lack of any experience in private proprietorship and private business practices the population of the Russian Federation is still not taking to the new system. For too many years it was imprinted on them that everything must be publicly owned. Much of this can to attributed to the Communist tradition of not communicating with the public, which is a core part of any democratic system, the public participation and communication in and with government. With the apparent lack of public participation in government, and in turn the lack of communication by the government with the people we can see that the Russian Federation is far from being democratic. The government acted too quickly in it's economic reforms with not enough practical experience in Democratic/Capitalistic to pull it off. We saw that some of the major contributing factors in the fall of communism was the dissension of the citizens due to the fact that the government did not live up to it's promise of a better life and the failure of the government to properly deal with social problems. The other factors were economic, many of which we can see are apparent in the new system. In it's current situation we are seeing the same factors. Unless these problems are addressed quickly and resolved effectively we will see the decline of yet another Russian governmental system. On looking at the past we can see that the Russian public must overcome many hurdles in ! order for them to truly embrace Democracy and enjoy the promises of a better life that it has made. The government must promote the education of it's citizens and communicate more efficiently with them. There is a long road ahead for the Russian Federation in this enormous task, and at this time it almost seems impossible. Bibliography Funk & Wagnalls. "Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeyevich; Russia; United Soviet Socialist Republic; Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich; Communism; Commonwealth of Independent States." Microsoft Encarta Ed. Microsoft Corporation. 1997 Ed. Funk & Wagnalls. "Russia, United Soviet Socialist Republic; Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich; Communism; Commonwealth of Independent States." The World Almanac and Book of Facts ed. Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. 1996 Ed. Columbia University Press. "Communism" The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations Ed. Columbia University Press. 1996 Ed. Columbia University Press. "Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeyevich; Russia; United Soviet Socialist Republic; Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich; Communism; Commonwealth of Independent States." The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Ed. Columbia University Press. 1996 Ed. Internet Web Page. "Everything about Russia (History Section)." Http://WWW.RUSSIA.NET Internet Web Page. "CNN Interactive (Russian Archive)." Http://WWW.CNN.COM M. F. Goldman, Russian and the Eurasian Republics - Building New Political Orders. PP 14-25 and 34-45. H. Brand, Why the Soviet Economy Failed A. B. Ulam, Looking at the Past: The Unraveling of the Soviet Union
The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater, but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in internal Soviet history.

1. Stagnation in the 1970s

The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted with the Nixon administration in 1972. This détente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political popularity.

Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods.

Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption. Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive. Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization.

In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity. In contrast to his later hagiographers, Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited, who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a foreign enemy to “defeat” it, for it was deteriorating from within.


2. Western Engagement with the USSR

Although the end of détente is sometimes attributed to President Reagan, it was actually President Carter who first resumed a hostile stance against the USSR in 1979, boycotting the Moscow Olympics, training guerrillas to resist the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and using the Soviet menace as a justification for increased military spending. Still, this was relatively mild tension compared to the earlier Cold War, as in the same year both superpowers agreed to abide by the terms of the SALT II talks.

During the early years of his presidency, Reagan employed potent rhetoric about the “evil empire”, establishing an openly adversarial stance toward the Soviet Union, apparently abandoning the policy of détente. His confrontational tone caused many to fear he would steer the world toward a repetition of the Cuban missile crisis. These fears were not calmed by Reagan’s massive military spending, particularly in nuclear weaponry, nor by his infamous Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Although SDI was supposed to end the fear of nuclear war by creating an umbrella of reliable missile defense, many political analysts saw the “star wars” program as potentially destabilizing and destructive of arms reduction treaties. Worse, SDI could be interpreted as Reagan’s attempt to make nuclear war “winnable”. Despite Reagan’s apparent belligerence, he never engaged the Soviet Union in a showdown that involved heightening the nation’s nuclear alert, nor in any other direct military confrontation. His Strategic Defense Initiative never materialized, though it was taken seriously in Soviet military circles.

Reagan’s exorbitant military spending might have indirectly harmed the Soviet economy, but it also strengthened the hardline elements of the regime. During the Reagan era, Soviet military spending did not appreciably increase as a percentage of GNP. Still, the Reagan buildup made badly needed reductions in military spending politically unfeasible. The American president’s hostile stance strengthened the hand of Soviet hardliners against the reforms of Gorbachev, and led to a greater Soviet emphasis on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development. Thus Reagan’s strategy had mixed effects on the Soviet regime, but in no way did Reagan force the Soviets’ hand. They were free to respond to his threats in a variety of ways, and determined policy according to their own internal dynamics. It might be true that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in an arms race, or at least in certain aspects of an arms race, but this is not enough to account for the loss of its Eastern European empire and its own dissolution.

Conservative think-tanks and advisers recommended that Reagan should combat the Soviet Union by cutting its financial supply lines from foreign governments and businesses. Much of this advice has been preserved in documents that partisans use to prove that the administration had a plan to defeat the Soviet Union. This plan indeed existed, yet it was never implemented, as the administration’s economic policy was determined by political realism. The United States continued to permit trade relations between the Soviet Union and American businesses, and Western capital continued to finance the Soviet command economy. There were no embargos imposed on the USSR, and the Soviets continued to conduct a lucrative arms trade. Like the presidents he criticized, Reagan found himself forced by circumstance to allow Western banks and businesses to continue to support the Soviet economy.

Another front on which Reagan faced the Soviets was the attrition battleground of the Third World. The staunchly anti-Communist Reagan deployed military resources against Communist regimes that were at best obliquely connected to the Soviet Union, such as those of Grenada and Nicaragua. While these minor actions did in some small way stem the spread of Communism, they did little to damage the Soviet empire. The only significant point of military engagement with the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. American support of Afghan and Arab guerrillas turned the conflict into a costly quagmire for the USSR. The war ended in defeat and humiliation for the Soviets, with great loss of life. Still, these losses were easily absorbed by the Soviet military colossus, and did not necessitate significant increases in the military operating budget U.S. policy in Afghanistan might be fairly credited for preventing Soviet expansion in the Middle East, but if we consider that in previous decades nearly all Arab nations were Soviet clients, we can see that Soviet imperialism was already in decline long before the Afghanistan debacle. Reagan’s indirect engagement of the Soviet Union did not bring about a Soviet military decline as much as it exposed weaknesses that already existed.

Military and economic reprisals against the Soviet Union in the 1980s were far too mild to account for its demise. Much harsher embargos were imposed on the feeble regimes of North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, yet these were all able to survive. The only stresses commensurate with the magnitude of the Soviet collapse are to be found within the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.


3. Gorbachev's Reforms

Major reforms of the stagnant command economy and corrupt political structure were not possible as long as the Brezhnev era old guard remained in control. After Brezhnev died in November 1982, he was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov, who died in early 1984. By then, Brezhnev's de facto second-in-command, Konstantin Chernenko, was already in failing health when he took over the Communist Party, so there was now a genuine possibility of substantively new leadership.

Chernenko died in March 1985, and was immediately succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev, a favorite of Andropov. Gorbachev was the youngest member of the Politburo at age fifty-four, a refreshing contrast with the gerontocracy that preceded him. Although he was a devout Marxist, Gorbachev had a history of independent thinking, and had been educated in Western political theory from Aquinas to Rousseau. He had always been a demanding manager, and he now appreciated the need for serious reform in order to halt the economic decline of the USSR, which threatened both its domestic and foreign policy objectives.

Gorbachev immediately proposed a “restructuring” (perestroika) of the economy, with little in the way of concrete reforms. His initial thinking appeared to be that a purely technical improvement in economic planning was needed to solve the Soviet Union's economic woes. By February 1986, Gorbachev was announcing the need for “radical reform,” but still without specifics.

Around the same time, especially after the Chernobyl disaster in the spring of that year, Gorbachev began reducing the degree of state control over media, and encouraged more open intellectual debate. As a token of his sincerity, he released longtime dissident Andrei Sakharov from exile in December 1986. This program of encouraging new ideas and limited free expression was known as glasnost (“openness”).

By January 1987, it had become clear to Gorbachev that the Soviet Union’s poor economic performance was rooted in deeper social and political problems. In his address to the Communist Party’s Central Committee, Gorbachev unleashed a scathing critique of the cynicism, apathy, and corruption that plagued Soviet society and politics, making many of the same diagnoses that Western academics had been teaching for years. He expanded his notion of perestroika to encompass not only economic restructuring, but also social relations and the political system.

Recognizing that Soviet society had matured enough to warrant the political inclusion of ordinary citizens, Gorbachev sought to reduce the power of officials and increase accountability. He proposed multi-candidate elections by secret ballot for the soviets and party organizations, and advocated the development of citizen groups that were independent of the party.

For the first time, economic reforms now explicitly recognized the need for competitive market relations. This was presented as a “law on socialist enterprise” at the Central Committee meeting in June 1987. By 1988, private ownership was permitted in certain manufacturing industries. Ironically, these reforms actually caused the Soviet economy to deteriorate further, as unprofitable private enterprises were now subsidized by the state, and the lack of state oversight of supply lines resulted in shortages of food and clothing, which were unknown even under Brezhnev.To a degree, the reforms actually served to weaken the perceived legitimacy of the government rather than enhance it.

There was resistance to Gorbachev’s reforms from both sides. Democratization and political decentralization were forcefully opposed by party hardliners in the Politburo, led by Second Secretary Yegor Ligachev. Meanwhile, others complained that reforms were proceeding too slowly. In October 1987, Boris Yeltsin expressed his protest by resigning as a Politburo member and as the Moscow Communist Party chief. He and other reform-minded politicians began to perceive that serious dissent could be expressed only from outside the party structure.

By 1988, Gorbachev was able to overcome his adversaries and push through his desired political reforms. In June, the 19th Party Conference approved open elections by secret ballot for congressional deputies and regional governors, as well as term limits for elected officials and reductions in Party bureaucracy and economic powers. In September, Gorbachev reorganized the Party Secretariat, demoting Ligachev and removing other opponents from the Politburo, replacing them with moderates as part of an apparent political compromise. He was able to harbor support for his reforms by imposing limitations on the types of elections allowing multiple candidates as well as rules on nominations, so the Party believed it could remain the dominant force in Soviet politics.

Gorbachev’s political reforms soon took on a life of their own, as new political groups fought Party attempts to exclude their candidates from the ballot. The elections to the Congress of People’s Deputies in February-March 1989 led to the shocking defeat of 35 oblast committee (obkom) Party secretaries and 200 other high ranking Communist officials. Among the victors was Boris Yeltsin, who won 89 percent of the vote to take the Moscow seat from the Communists. Perestroika and glasnost had utterly failed to secure the Party’s claim to legitimacy.

A new political class emerged not only in Russia, but also the other Soviet republics. This rising political class included many of the same men who would later be directly responsible for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The nationalism of Yeltsin and his counterparts in other republics was motivated not only by a desire to destroy the Communist Party’s mechanisms of power, but by their own political aspirations.


4. The Loss of Eastern Europe

The political and economic reforms in the USSR encouraged movements in other Warsaw Pact nations to make similar demands. In his 1988 visit to Poland, Gorbachev made clear that he had no intention of using military force to prop up the Communist regime there, in a striking departure from the Brezhnev doctrine. He followed up with a remarkable speech to the UN in December of that year, promising to withdraw tens of thousands of Soviet troops, tanks and artillery systems from Eastern Europe, in order to assure the world that the USSR no longer had large scale offensive military capability in Europe.

This Soviet policy shift weakened the negotiating position of the Polish Communist Party, which agreed to let the independent union Solidarity (Solidarnosc) run candidates against them in free elections in April 1989. Solidarity had long received covert financial and advisory support from the Vatican and the United States, enabling it to survive long enough to reach this accomplishment. Ultimately, however, the outcome was in the hands of the Polish electorate, who were widely expected to support a Communist majority. Instead, Solidarity candidates shockingly won every contested seat, despite having been outspent considerably by their opponents.

Although the Reagan administration certainly played a role in the support of Solidarity—though not enough for them to have adequate campaign financing—there was little expectation of an immediate domino effect as dramatic as what actually occurred. Secret intelligence briefings that year gave no hint that regime overthrow in East Germany was a realistic possibility. Indeed, months passed before the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was the immediate catalyst of similar uprisings in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania. The USSR declined to intervene in any of these revolutions, as it was already committed to unilateral withdrawal from Eastern Europe.

The U.S. has a long history of provoking coups and economic crises through a variety of methods, but with limited success, even in relatively small countries. Massive resources would have been needed to orchestrate a collapse in Eastern Europe. Such an operation could not remain invisible for very long, nor could agencies responsible for such a project fail to anticipate the possibility of its success. The collapse of the East must be understood by studying the East, not the speeches of Western politicians, which at best had an inspirational effect, but provided no tangible aid to independence movements.

A key to the success of national anti-Communist movements was the refusal of the Soviets to exert military force to maintain control. A variety of factors went into this decision, including the relative cost and benefit of direct military occupation, the weaknesses exposed in Afghanistan, and the liberalizing tendencies of Gorbachev. It is not clear how much of the bloc the Soviets would have been able to retain by force, but they certainly made a deliberate strategic decision in relinquishing all of it. For their part, Communist governments were under popular pressure not to rely on foreign military support, so they asked for Soviet withdrawal as a last attempt to preserve the legitimacy of their rule. If the Soviets hoped the Communist regimes would survive without military intervention, this proved to be a miscalculation.

Eastern Europeans did not need Western propaganda to teach them to despise their dictatorial governments; the everyday facts of life provided ample cause. As Reagan had contended back in the 1970s, the Communist regimes could not survive because they were “inhuman,” and would not be tolerated indefinitely. Although the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu tried to blame his country’s woes on Western economic sabotage, the populace could experience for themselves the corruption and inefficiencies of the Communist system. Romania was even more economically isolated than most Warsaw Pact nations, making foreign economic sabotage unfeasible.

Even after the loss of its European buffer zone, the Soviet Union remained formidable. On the basis of its strategic nuclear capability and troop strength, it could reasonably claim to be the world’s greatest military power. By the mid-1980s, the Warsaw Pact satellites had ceased to be an economic asset to the Soviet Union, and in fact Gorbachev’s withdrawal had been motivated in part by economic considerations. There was no longer a real danger of war with Western Europe, so the bloc had lost its strategic significance as well. It would be a mistake, then, to perceive the loss of Eastern Europe as a severe wound to the domestic Soviet economy or military. On the contrary, it enabled the Soviet government to focus its resources on more critical areas.

At the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union had serious economic problems, but it was still financially sound, due to its enormous assets in gold, oil and natural gas. State budget deficits were a concern because they might require a slowdown of perestroika, not because the USSR was in any danger of default. As bad as the Soviet economy was by Western standards, it was in much better shape than other debtor nations. Western intelligence agencies were reasonable in their assessment that the regime would struggle, while expecting that it would persist.

It can be tempting to draw a simplistic connection between Reagan’s famous “tear down this wall” in 1987 and the actual destruction of the wall in 1989. In fact, Reagan’s famous phrase was directed to Gorbachev, urging the Soviet leader to make good his promise of greater openness. What actually happened in 1989 was not the top-down reform demanded by Reagan, but something far more radical. A broad popular uprising took matters into its own hands, abolishing the East German regime altogether. No serious analyst anticipated such a breathtaking turn of events. While Reagan and his cabinet certainly wished for the demise of Communism and did everything in their power to hasten that end, in fact they had very limited means at their disposal. The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe was caused principally by the people of Eastern Europe. Western powers played only a marginal role in the events of 1989, as in the aforementioned covert operations in Poland.

Still, Reagan deserves credit, if not for causing the Communist collapse, then at least for astutely perceiving the internal weakness of the Communist regimes. His conviction in the unsustainability of the Communist system encouraged him to take a firm diplomatic stand with Warsaw Pact nations, refusing to make things easy for them. Reagan’s anti-Communism was not purely pragmatic, but also had a moral dimension, as he recognized how deeply unpopular and injurious Communism was to the people who labored under it.


5. Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Despite his bellicose rhetoric, Reagan actually developed a cooperative relationship with the Soviet Union and a respectful understanding with Gorbachev. The Reagan era was marked with significant bilateral arms control agreements, as well as greater economic openness between the West and the Soviet bloc. This warming of relations continued under President George Bush, who made plain his commitment to a unified Soviet state, even as nationalist fervor aroused separatist sentiments in the Baltics and the Ukraine. Bush was concerned that a sudden breakup of the Union would have negative consequences for global security and free trade, though he was not opposed to republican independence in principle. He studiously avoided taking sides in the emerging conflict between the central government and the Soviet republics.

There had been nationalist rumblings within the Soviet Union as early as 1988, when the Armenians protested the treatment of their fellows in Karabagh, a territory that Stalin had reallocated to the Azerbaijan republic. Although there was no talk of seceding from the Soviet Union, Gorbachev’s handling of the issue made clear that he was not willing to use military force to suppress nationalist unrest.

The Soviet republics did not have a long history of nationalist sentiment; rather, secessionism arose because of deep dissatisfaction with the Communist central government in the political and economic spheres. Apart from Communism, there was little reason for the Union to persist in its integrity. In 1989, secessionist movements were strongest in the Baltic republics, which had a history of independence prior to their forcible annexation in 1940. Yet decentralizing inclinations would soon arise even in those republics that had no recent history of autonomy, having been part of the old Russian empire. We cannot explain these movements simply in terms of nationalistic identity.

Most of the decentralizing actions taken by the republics, including the declarations of sovereignty made in 1990, were motivated by frustration with the rule of the actual Communist government, rather than intractable ethnic differences. By making republican law take priority over Soviet law, the republics hoped to free themselves to accelerate political and economic reforms, and assert their institutional independence from the Communist party. During this “war of laws,” the republics assumed control of some industries that had formerly belonged to the Soviet state, and ceased to pay taxes to the Union, depriving it of critical revenue.

Alarmed by the prospect of the Union disintegrating, Gorbachev put perestroika on hold, and proposed a more decentralized Soviet Union that would be more like a confederation, with the republics having a degree of autonomy and sovereignty. Apart from the Baltic republics and some of the Caucasus nations (e.g., Georgia and Armenia), there was little appetite for outright secession among most Soviets. This was proven by a March 1991 referendum on preserving the Union, which was favored by over 70 percent of the vote in each of the nine republics that considered it: Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. (Armenia, Georgia, Moldavia, and the Baltics abstained.) A less centralized, yet still united USSR was still a viable possibility, if the will of the Soviet people was to be respected. By August, eight of the nine republics had signed onto the new union treaty. Ukraine still disputed the terms of the treaty, though 70 percent of its voters supported joining the Union in some form.

While Gorbachev saw the treaty as the best hope for preserving the Union, Communist hardliners perceived that it would lead to the weakening and destruction of the USSR. To prevent the signing of the treaty, eight high-ranking Soviet officials, including the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Interior, the head of the KGB, and the head of the Peasant’ Union (supporting collectivization of farms), orchestrated a coup against Gorbachev. On August 18, five officials visited Gorbachev’s dacha in the Crimea, where he was vacationing, and tried to persuade him to declare a state of emergency. He adamantly refused, so the following day he was held prisoner in his vacation home while tanks and troops were sent into the streets of Moscow. This was eerily reminiscent of the 1964 coup against Khruschev, when the premier returned from a trip abroad to find himself asked to “retire.” Now the people were told that Gorbachev was ill or incapacitated. Some leaders of the republics assented to the coup, or at least remained silent.

It was not so with Boris Yeltsin, who declared the coup unconstitutional and led a public protest in the streets of Moscow. Soviet troops refused to take any action against the protestors, so the coup leaders relented on August 21, just two days later. When Gorbachev returned to Moscow, he found himself forced by Yeltsin to agree to the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which was collectively held responsible for the coup. He resigned as head of the party, while retaining his office as President of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin banned the CPSU throughout the Russian republic by decree on November 6.

Once the coup was defeated, Yeltsin and the other republic leaders no longer contemplated joining the confederation proposed in the spring, which had been supported by large majorities of voters. Instead, he met with the leaders of the Ukraine and Byelorussia (now renamed Belarus) and agreed to dissolve the Soviet Union completely. This was done without consulting the voters or even the Supreme Soviets of their respective republics. Faced with this fait accompli, the remaining republics agreed to the formation of a Commonwealth of Independent States for the purpose of maintaining joint security and international treaty commitments. In this way, even the Central Asian republics, which had been united to Russia even under tsars, and had voted 95 percent in favor of the Union referendum, were now dismembered from the whole.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was formalized on December 25, was not driven by any practical necessity, nor by the goal of democratization. On the contrary, this last phase of the empire’s decline, by far the most surprising precisely because it was so unnecessary, was conducted by entirely undemocratic means. The individual leaders of a minority of republics set in motion a precipitous chain of events that destroyed any chance of the confederation that supermajorities of their constituents had advocated. Even today, many millions of citizens in the former Soviet republics regret the loss of the Union, if not its Communist leadership. The beneficiaries of this dismemberment were not the republics, several of which are hardly viable as independent nations, but the new political elites that gained the wealth and power of the Soviet state at their disposal.


6. Aftermath of the Dissolution

Russia would become a much lesser geopolitical and economic power than the USSR, particularly because of its loss of the Ukraine, yet the Russian government would profit immensely from the spoliation of the Soviet state. As the largest and most central republic, Russia naturally took over the lion’s share of state assets, which include not only the formidable Soviet military, but countless state industries. The state industries were privatized under Yeltsin in the early nineties, via a process that is best characterized as plunder. For a predominantly socialist country to sell of all its assets in such a short period of time was, needless to say, irresponsible. The industries were bought up by insiders who made billions and became the much maligned “oligarchs” who dominated the Russian economy. Meanwhile, much of the Soviet Union’s liquid assets such as gold, silver, platinum and paper currency mysteriously disappeared.

Under Yeltsin’s rule, the Russian economy went into a disastrous tailspin of hyperinflation and 50 percent GDP loss. For all the problems of Gorbachev’s USSR, it at least had stagnant growth of 2 percent per annum, and was projected to continue to do so before the political crises of 1989-91. To blame the USSR’s dissolution on the Russian economic disaster would be to put the effect before the cause. The inefficiencies of the command economy, though serious, were not sufficient to precipitate the economic chaos of Yeltsin’s Russia. The West was reluctant to admit this, since Yeltsin was only following the disastrous one-size-fits-all free market prescriptions of the so-called “Washington Consensus,” as the neoliberal policies of the IMF and World Bank were termed. In the climate of the time, it was easier to blame the USSR for Russia’s woes than to admit that capitalism could ever go bad, especially when the West was profiting from the debacle.

Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, CIA reports on Yeltsin indicated that the man, though admittedly vain and opportunistic, nonetheless was sincerely motivated by the desire for a more democratic society. In other words, he was not merely playing a role in order to position himself for greater power. However accurate that assessment may have been, it can hardly be denied that Yeltsin was a disappointment to those expecting a democratic Russia to emerge. An early indication of Yeltsin’s autocratic tendencies was his famous confrontation with the Russian parliament in 1993. As the majority of the Russian legislature by then opposed the president’s policies, Yeltsin sought to draft a new constitution, which would dissolve the legislature and grant him greater powers. On September 21, he dissolved the Russian Supreme Soviet and claimed extraordinary executive powers.

Undeterred by this attempt at a coup, the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies convened and impeached Yeltsin. Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Moscow to support the parliament and protest Yeltsin’s economic policies, which had led to a steep GDP decline, in contrast with the slow growth of the late Soviet period. Privatization had led to disruption of social services, including medical care, and organized crime and corruption were rampant. By October 3, parliament supporters were violently engaged with Interior Ministry troops, and dozens were killed.

Through all this, the nations of the West unabashedly supported Yeltsin, proving that they loved capitalism much more than democracy. The deciding factor in the president’s favor was the support of the Russian army, which stormed the congressional building with tanks and dispersed the protesters, killing hundreds. Since many of the opposing deputies were Communists, Yeltsin was able to characterize them as reactionaries or revanchists, playing to the West’s prejudices. We have seen, however, that Communism, with all its failings, did not lead Russia into the economic precipice that was the result of “shock therapy” privatization, where the vast assets and industries of the Soviet state were auctioned to a few unscrupulous oligarchs, while a society that had been structured around a state-dependent economy was suddenly stripped of its publicly owned capital. This neoliberal policy stroked Western egos about the intrinsic superiority of liberal capitalism, while at the same time enabling foreign investors to profit immensely. It was a small matter that parliamentary democracy was forcibly suppressed in favor of a new tsar.

A cunning realist, Yeltsin spoke democratic language while acting autocratically, and lauded the free market while promoting crony monopolism. Rejecting Communism made Yeltsin the favorite of the West, whose financial support he would need more than ever. The plundering oligarchs of Russia were rewarded with unprecedented financial aid from Western nations, so that a few became kings while the nation as a whole was humiliated and stripped of its great power status.

The Soviet Union had serious economic problems, but none were grave enough to account for the total collapse that followed its dissolution. Prior to 1990, no Western economist predicted such a debacle; some forecasts for Soviet growth were even mildly encouraging. Economists are well aware of the market’s sensitivity to minor government policy changes, so it should be unsurprising that the wholesale liquidation of state industries and assets would cause cataclysmic economic upheaval. No one predicted such a sell-off because it made little political or economic sense, but the Russian oligarchs acted without regard for the welfare of the nation. There was no historical precedent for the plundering of a state the size of the Soviet Union, and uncertainty is always bad for markets. The economic disaster of privatization was worsened by the neoliberal austerity measures promoted by the IMF, the World Bank, and “free market” ideologues in Washington, who have destroyed more than a few economies through uncritical deregulation of markets and demolition of social welfare programs. The independent Russian Central Bank furthered the crisis by monetizing much of its debt and causing hyperinflation.

Russia entered a period of chaos that political realists like George Bush had sought to avoid, though fortunately the issue of nuclear security was soon resolved by moving Ukrainian warheads into Russia. Once the moment of nuclear peril had ended, the United States could look back upon the collapse of the Soviet Union as a definitive victory for American policy. As I have tried to show, the reality is not nearly that simple. The United States did not seek to destabilize the Soviet Union politically or economically. This was true even of Reagan, who oversaw economic and strategic rapprochement with the Soviets despite the saber-rattling of his early presidency, so by his second term he repudiated the “evil empire” moniker, as it no longer applied to the reformed Soviet Union. Bush was openly supportive of a unified Soviet Union as late as 1991. Thus it is revisionism of the first order to claim that the United States caused the Soviet collapse through its deliberate policies.

It is possible that the United States accelerated the Soviet downfall incidentally, through economic competition or financial penetration. This scenario is unlikely, however, since the United States has had much more lopsided economic relations with Third World countries, yet has seldom been able to force political reform this way. The breakup of the Soviet empire would not have been possible without the potent force of Eastern European nationalism and the heavy yoke Communist rule imposed on the people economically and culturally. The destruction of the Soviet Union itself was not foreordained, even after the loss of its satellites. Here it was victimized by a political structure that lacked all legal accountability, inhabited by men without scruples. Socialism did not deal the death blow, but instead a complete lack of social consciousness among former Soviet officials made possible the looting of the state. The collectivist spirit of Marxism had long been dead in Moscow; the events of 1991 merely formalized this reality


              BOLDLY SAY  I AM  NOT A  COMMUNIST
Image result for Some anti-communist images
Image result for Anti-Communist Quotes
                    ANTI-COMMUNIST IMAGES

      END OF COMMUNISM

OUT OF TEN MOST RECENT AND CURRENT COMMUNIST NATIONS IN THE WORLD HOW COMMUNISM VANISHED FROM FIVE COUNTRIES IN THE RECENT HISTORY

Communist nations are quickly disappearing from the world as we move further away from the Cold War and into the 21st century. Today the world has only five remaining Communist nations. They are China , Vietnam , North Korea , Cuba and Venejuella.With the march of democracy around the world the aforesaid last five countries are struggling to hold on to any remaining political and economic power in the largely democratic world that surrounds them. Here we are giving a political and economic analysis of the last five remaining communist nations of the world  and how the last five countries of the world which  moved away from Marxist Ideologies.They are Congo , Albania , Yugoslavia , Afghanistan and Angola . Due to own inherent defects of Marxism and victorious march of democracy all over the world , the people all over the world are quickly moving away from Communism to Democracy all over the world . This is a natural and unstoppable worldwide phenomenon .

Congo: Communism ended on March 15, 1992

congo

The smaller of the two countries named Congo (Brazzaville refers to the capital in order to distinguish them–Kinshasa is the larger), The People’s Republic of the Congo was the second-latest Marxist state on the African continent. The People’s Republic was founded after a leftist militant coup in 1970. The initial leader, Marien Ngouabi, led the local Marxist/Leninist party for seven years before himself being assassinated. The nation maintained strong ties to semi-socialist France as well as the Soviet Union–the Soviet Union was the largest sponsor of African Marxist countries. Like many of the 1992 transitions from Communism, the initial transition was relatively peaceful. Sadly, the peace did not last, with a civil war following in the late 1990s, and peace has only returned alongside single-party rule, with much international concern for the human rights of indigenous communities.

 Albania: Communism ended on March 22, 1992

albania

Following the conclusion of World War II, Albania ended up more closely linked to its northern neighbor, Yugoslavia, than its southern neighbor, Greece. As such, it became a communist nation, even after its relations with Yugoslavia deteriorated. At that point, the ruling clique aligned with the Soviet Union–but even this link was short-lived, with relations with China eventually becoming critical to securing independent leadership from Yugoslavia. In the 1970s, even this relationship deteriorated, and Albania began establishing relations with France, Italy, and other non-communist powers. Following the execution of the Romanian communist leadership in 1989, Albania began to formalize elections and other human rights, before transitioning from communism in 1992 and eventually establishing a new constitution in 1998. Albania applied for European Union membership in 2009, reflecting a strong transition to western-style democracy.

. Yugoslavia: Communism ended on April 27, 1992

yugoslavia

A federation of many disparate nations, the original Yugoslavia was formed in 1918 following World War I, and took its Communist form in 1943. Today, its former constituents include Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and Kosovo–a disparate group once united under the banner of the “Land of the Southern Slavs”, the translation of Yugoslavia. Only the first six were recognized as Federal States under Yugoslavia, with Kosovar independence coming only later. Ruled initially by the communist Tito, Yugoslavia had a split with the Soviet Union almost immediately after the war, and Tito retained relatively good relations with the United States–although not too close, as he never joined NATO. After his death in 1980, uprisings began later in the 1980s, and degenerated into a protracted war through the 1990s. Conflict largely subsided in 1999, and today all former members are either in the E.U. (Slovenia and Croatia), candidates (Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia), or potential future candidates (Kosovo as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina). Investigations into war crimes in the former Yugoslavia have continued to the present day, as the dissolution of the state was a violent and bloody episode.

 Afghanistan: Communism ended on April 28, 1992afghanistan

With Soviet support, the first Communist regime was established in Afghanistan in 1978, and it survived in various forms until 1992. The leaders initially after the revolution, Nur Muhammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, instituted a number of reforms, including equal rights for women and land reform. Both were assassinated before 1980, however, and the reforms were eventually rolled back. The Soviet Union remained a military force through most of the 1980s, and millions of refugees left for neighboring Pakistan and Iran. Without Soviet backup, the ruling Communist clique was unable to maintain power, and the government collapsed in 1992. The country has been embroiled in civil war essentially ever since, with the US replacing the Soviets as the main force powering the government–but nevertheless, armed conflict has been ever-present, with or without Communism. This country of 25 million remains one of the poorest countries on earth.

 Angola: Communism ended on August 27, 1992

angola

After winning its independence from Portugal in 1975, two groups aimed to dominate the new-found Republic: one (the MPLA) backed by the USSR, and the other (UNITA) backed by the US. The MPLA won out, and Angola was a communist republic until the broad collapse of most communist countries in 1992. With strong ties to the USSR, Caribbean Communist country Cuba, and fellow south African, Portuguese-speaking country Mozambique–which turned communist at the same time. Civil war between the two sides began in 1975 and lasted, with some quieter periods, until 2002–though the fall of Communist rule came in 1992, and some resistance continued beyond 2002. Today, Angola is a hotbed for Chinese investment, and with its oil riches it has a rapidly increased GDP per person (although inequality remains high and many residents are quite poor). Peace has been relatively lasting, with over a decade since cessation of conflict, and many economic improvements have been made since then.

Photograph of the Gettysburg National Cemetery

Soldiers National Cemetery
© Abraham Lincoln Online

 

 
Abraham Lincoln O-3 by Joslin, 1857.jpg
Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner referred to the most famous speech ever given by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called the Gettysburg Address a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."

There are five known copies of the speech in Lincoln's handwriting, each with a slightly different text, and named for the people who first received them: Nicolay, Hay, Everett, Bancroft and Bliss. Two copies apparently were written before delivering the speech, one of which probably was the reading copy. The remaining ones were produced months later for soldier benefit events. Despite widely-circulated stories to the contrary, the president did not dash off a copy aboard a train to Gettysburg. Lincoln carefully prepared his major speeches in advance; his steady, even script in every manuscript is consistent with a firm writing surface, not the notoriously bumpy Civil War-era trains. Additional versions of the speech appeared in newspapers of the era, feeding modern-day confusion about the authoritative text.

Abraham Lincoln O-3 by Joslin, 1857.jpg

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.”

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow, this ground – The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

OLD NEWS FROM VENEJUELLA
Thousands March in Venezuela to Demand President’s Ouster , but the socialist President , Mr. Nicolas Maduro has straightly refused to step down from power .
Thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas, the capital, on Thursday to express their anger over the country’s economic collapse and the government’s leadership.
CARACAS, Venezuela — Thousands took to the streets here on Thursday to demand the ouster of President Nicolás Maduro in what appeared to be the year’s largest display of frustration with Venejuella's economic collapse and leadership.
The march, which protesters called “the taking of Caracas,” was organized by political opponents of the country’s ruling leftists. The marchers took over a major highway and several avenues in Caracas, the nation’s capital, and poured into the city’s plazas in an effort to gain momentum for a referendum to recall Mr. Maduro.
But the discontent was far greater than mere political frustration in a country that has spiraled into economic ruin. Some protesters traveled for hours from parts of Venezuela where they said they could no longer find enough food. Others said they could not find work, or that their cities were plagued by violence and suffering from a lack of government presence.
Ivonne Mejías, 42, who wore a headband of yellow, blue and red, the colors of the Venezuelan flag, said the situation had become so difficult that she had not been able to bake birthday cakes for her children this year. Her family of four gets by on just $25 a week, Ms. Mejías said, and she has taken to making piñatas to earn extra money.
SEVERE FOOD CRISIS AND PEOPLE GOING HUNGRY IN VENEJUELLA
A study by three of the country's main universities indicates that 90% of Venezuelans are eating less than they did last year and that "extreme poverty" has jumped by 53% since 2014.There are a number of causes - shortages of basic goods, bad management, a host of speculators and hoarders, and a severe drop in the country's oil income. Plus, of course, the highest inflation rate in the world. The country's official inflation rate was 180% in December, the last time a figure was made public, but the IMF estimates it will be above 700% by the end of the year.
We found that there are endless queues of people trying to buy food - any food - at supermarkets and other government-run shops.
We were also stopped at a roadblock in the middle of the countryside by people who said they had eaten nothing but mangoes for three days.
We saw the hopeless expression of a mother, who had been eating so little that she was no longer able to breastfeed her baby.
Venezuelans Pour Into Neighboring Colombia for Basic Supplies Venezuelans Pour Into Neighboring Colombia for Basic Supplies Venezuelans Pour Into Neighboring Colombia for Basic Supplies Venezuelans Pour Into Neighboring Colombia for Basic Supplies The people were so desperate and hungry that they entered into neughbouring Columbia for getting food supplies . Critics of Venezuela Govt. Say They Are Targets Of Conspiracies
The situation is so bad that there are endless queues of people trying to buy food - any food - at supermarkets and other government-run shops. Now the people are demanding resignation of President Maduro . But he is refusing to resign from his post .
EXTRACTS OF ONE OLD PAGE OF THIS WEBSITE
We reproduce herewith below some few extracts of one old page of our this website regarding turmoil in Venejuella reported by us few years' back . Our purpose is to explain how democracy is the only form of government which can thrive in this world . Venejuella is one of the last five countries of the world where communism still exists . If we will compare between democracy and communism , this article will show that democracy is much more better than communism . Due to it's own inherent defects and weaknesses communism is failing all over the world . Communism is just like a millitary dictatorship .
SEE THE EXTRACTS BELOW:-
IT IS MOST UNFRTUNATE THAT ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE OF VENEZUELLA WANTS DEMOCRACY BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY ARE RULED BY THE COMMUNIST DICTATORS ONE AFTER ANOTHER BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREES SINCE THE LAST 15 YEARS . THERE HAVE BEEN FREQUENT VIOLENT CLASHES BETWEEN PRO-DEMOCRACY SUPPORTERS AND THE POLICE IN VENEZUELLA.
THERE WAS GOOD FREINDSHIP AND POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUBAN PRESIDENT MR. CASTRO AND VENEZUELLAN PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ.

Image result for pictures of hugo chavezImage result for pictures of hugo chavezImage result for pictures of hugo chavezImage result for pictures of hugo chavez

HUGO CHAVEZ , A VENEZUELAN POLITICIAN WAS THE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA FROM 1999 TO 2013 . IN THE LAST PART OF HIS RULE , HE SUFFERED FROM CANCER . THE PRESENT PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA IS MR. NOCOLAS MADURO . HE WAS A BUS DRIVER . HE WAS ELECTED AS THE NEW PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA . FORMER PRESIDENT ,WHO WAS 58 , DIED OF CANCER .MR. NICOLAS MADURO WAS FORMERLY VICE-PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA . LIKE MR. HUGO CHAVEZ , NICOLAS MADURO IS A COMMUNIST DICTATOR . MR. NICOLAS MADURO A COMMUNIST DICTATOR AND NOW THE PRESIDENT OF VENEJUELLA  IS NOW RULING VENENJUELLA BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREES.
PEOPLE ARE NOW DEMANDING RESIGNATION OF THEIR PRESIDENT . JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF NORTH KOREA ,HE IS FORCIBLY TRYING TO RULE HIS COUNTRY BY USE OF BRUTAL MILLITARY FORCE .
Image result for Images of Maduro Venezuela presidentImage result for Images of Maduro Venezuela presidentImage result for Images of Maduro Venezuela presidentImage result for Images of Maduro Venezuela presidentImage result for Images of Maduro Venezuela president
EXPULSION OF THREE US DIMPLOMATS FROM VENEZUELLA
MR. NICOLAS MADURO , YESTERDAY THAT IS ON 17/02/2014 HAD ORDERED FOR EXPULSION OF THREE US DIPLOMATS FROM HIS COUNTRY . HE ACCUSED THESE DIPLOMATS OF MEETTING AND INCITING STUDENTS , WHO ARE NOW CARRYING ON ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTS AND VIOLENT ANTI-GOVERNMENT AGITATIONS IN VENEZUELA . MR. MADURO SAID THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING THESE US DIPLOMATS WHO WERE MEETING STUDENTS IN THE UNIVERSITIES.
COUNTRIES STILL RULED BY THE COMMUNISTS
IT MAY BE STATED HERE THAT WHEN COMMUNISM HAS VANISHED FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD BUT STILL THERE ARE VERY FEW COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHICH ARE RULED BY THE COMMUNISTS . THEY ARE CHINA , VIETNAM , NORTH KOREA , CUBA AND VENEZUELA .
SOME NEW COUNTRIES WHERE COMMUNISTS ARE STRUGGLING TO COME TO POWER THROUGH ARMED REVOLUTIONS
INDIA AND PHILIPINES ARE TWO COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHERE COMMUNISTS ARE STRUGGLING TO COME TO POWER BOTH WAYS THAT IS BY ARMED REVOLUTIONS BY ARMED COMMUNISTS AND ALSO THROUGH REGULAR DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS BY FORMING COMMUNIST PARTIES OR LEFT FRONTS BY PARTICIPATING IN GENERAL ELECTIONS .
REFUSAL BY CHINA TO OBEY THE VERDICT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT HAGUE
CHINA HAS SAID TODAY THAT IT IS NOT BOUND TO OBEY THE VERDICT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF  JUSTICE AT HAGUE IN THE CASE FILED BY PHILIPINES AGAINST CHINA  IN THE MATTER OF FORCIBLE OCCUPATION BY CHINA OVER MORE THAN 500 UNINHABITED ISLANDS LAYING ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA .
FORCIBLE CHINESE OCCUPATION OF MORE THAN 500 ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA
CHINA HAS NOW FORCIBLY OCCUPIED MORE THAN 500 ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA . THESE ISLANDS ARE ALL NOMAN ISLANDS AND ARE SUTUATED IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS . THESE ISLANDS HAVE GOT HUGE RESERVES OF MINERALS , OIL AND NATURAL GAS THESE ISLANDS BELONGS TO THE WHOLE OF MANKIND . BUT ALL ON A SUDDEN CHINA HAS BUILT FACILITIES FOR DRAWING OF PETROLEUM BY RIGGING OF OIL WELLS . CHINA KNEW VERY WELL THAT THESE ISLANDS HAVE GOT HUGE RESERVES OF PETROLEUM IN THESE 500 ISLANDS . CHINA HAS NOW STARTED EXPLOITING HUGE NATURAL RESOURCES AND SEA PRODUCTS FROM THESE ISLANDS .
EVEN NOW CHINA HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF CLAIMING SOVEREIGNITY OVER THESE ISLANDS . CHINA NOW SAYS THAT THESE ISLANDS BELONGS TO CHINA
CHINA HAS ALSO FORCIBLY OCCUPIED TIBET , MACAU , HONGKONG AND MONGOLIA ETC BY USE OF IT'S SUPERIOR MILLITARY FORCE . ADMITTEDLY CHINA IS A COLONIAL POWER .
LIKE WISE RUSSIA HAS ALSO FORCILY OCCUPIED CREMEA AND GEORGIA ETC BY USE OF MILLITARY FORCE .
WHEN ALL WESTERN POWERS HAVE GRANTED INDEPENDENCE TO ALL THEIR FORMER COLONIES LONG BACK , AT THE SAME TIME CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE FORCIBLY OCCUPYING NEW TERRITORIES AND ARE CREATING NEW COLONIES .
CHINA'S CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNITY OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA IS ABSURD AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNTENABLE
CHINA IS WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRY . CHINA IS CLAIMING IT'S SOVEREIGNITY OVER SOME UNINHABITATED ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA . ALL THE ISLANDS OVER SOUTH SEA ARE ALL UNIHABITATED WITH NO POPULATION AT ALL . ENTIRE SOUTH CHINA SEA IS IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS AND BELONGS TO ENTIRE HUMANITY AND NOT FEW NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES SUCH AS CHINA , PHILIPINES , MALAYESIA AND VIETNAM . ALL THE OCEANS AND SEAS BELONGS TO THE ENTIRE WORLD AND NOT FEW COUNTRIES MAKING ABSOLUTELY MAD CLAIMS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME TO INTERNATIONAL WATERS AND UNIHABITATED ISLANDS IN OCEANS AND SEAS WHEN THERE ARE SERIOUS OBJECTIONS FROM MANY COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD .
CLAIM OF CHINA IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE . CHINA IS A MAD COUNTRY . IT HAS FORCIBLY OCCUPIED TIBET , MANY PARTS OF INDIA IN THE HIMALAYAN RANGE FROM 1962 , MACAO AND HONG KONG ETC. KEEPING A GREEDY EYE ON RICH OILS AND NATURAL GAS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA AND ALL IT'S UNIHABITATED ISLANDS , CHINA IS NOW MAKING FALSE CLAIMS OF SOVEREGNITY IN ENTIRE SOUTH CHINA SEA .
IN THE YEAR 1962 , CHINA VERY SUDDENLY ATTACKED INDIA AND BY SIMPLE USE OF MILLITARY FORCE FORCIBLY OCCUPIED THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORIES ABSOLUTELY BELONGING TO INDIA . ONE CAN NOT OCCUPY ANOTHER'S LAND BY USE OF SUPERIOR MILLITARY FORCE
REFUSAL BY CHINA TO GRANT INDEPENDENCE TO TIBET,HONGKONG AND MACAU
THE MARXIST REGIME IN CHINA ARE USING MILLITARY FORCE TO SUPRESS THE FREE SPEECH AND ALL KINDS OF FREEDOM MOVEMENTS IN CHINA . THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OF CHINA HAVE FORCIBLY OCCUPIED TIBET , HONGKONG , MACAU AND MORE THAN 500 ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA BELONGING TO THE WORLD COMMUNITY . CHINA HAS VERY RECENTLY OCCUPIED THESE MORE THESE MORE THAN 500 ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA SITUATED IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS KEEPING A GREEDY EYE OVER THE HUGE QUANTINTY OF MINERALS , OIL AND NATURAL GAS BENEATH THESE ISLANDS
CHINESE OFFICIAL ATTACK ON PRO-DEMOCRACY STUDENTS IN HONGKONG
CHINA HAS TODAY LAUNCHED A FULLSCALE ATTACK ON PRO-DEMOCRACY STUDENT ACTIVISTS IN HONG KONG . A COURT IN HONGKONG HAS COVICTED PRO-DEMOCRACY STUDENT LEADERS TO IMPRISONMENT .
CHINA IS SUCH A BAD AND DANGEROUS COUNTRY THAT IN STEAD OF GRANTING INDEPENDENCE TO HONGKONG , CHINA HAS LAUNCHED A SYSTEMATIC ATTACK ON YOUNG CHINESE STUDENT LEADERS OF HONGKONG FOR LAST YEAR'S PRO-DEMOCRACY STUDENT MOVEMENTS IN HONGKONG .
SINO-TIBETAN WAR BETWEEN CHINA AND TIBET OF 1930 AND DEFEAT OF TIBET
The Sino-Tibetan War is a war that began in 1930 when the Tibetan Army under the 13th Dalai Lama invaded Xikang and Yushu in Quignhai i in a dispute over monasteries. Maclique warlord Ma Bufang secretly sent a telegram to Sichuan  warlord Liu Wenhui  and the leader of theRepublic of China , Chiang Kai-shek   suggesting a joint attack on the Tibetan forces. Their armies rapidly overwhelmed and defeated the Tibetan army. Since 1930 China has been forcibly occupying Tibet . Till now also China has refused to grant Independence to Tibet .
CHINA IS NOW MAKING FALSE CLAIMS OF SOVEREGNITY IN ENTIRE SOUTH CHINA SEA .
CHINA HAS NOW STARTED EXPLOITING HUGE NATURAL RESOURCES AND SEA PRODUCTS FROM THESE ISLANDS .
EVEN NOW CHINA HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF CLAIMING SOVEREIGNITY OVER THESE ISLANDS . CHINA NOW SAYS THAT THESE ISLANDS BELONGS TO CHINA
AFTER OCCUPATION OF 500 ISLANDS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA BY USE OF MILLITARY FORCE , CHINA IS SO EMBOLDENED THAT IT IS NOW TELLING THAT ENTIRE SOUTH CHINA SEA BELONGS TO CHINA . WHO WILL ACCEPT IF TOMORROW INDIA WILL TELL THAT ENTIRE INDIAN OCEAN BELONGS TO INDIA ? BUT INDIAN LEADERS ARE NOT SO FOOL AND NON-SENSE THAT THEY WILL TELL THAT INDIAN OCEAN BELONGS TO INDIA . WE PRAY ALMIGHTY GOD TO GIVE GOOD SENSE AND WISDOM TO COMMUNIST CHINESE LEADERS TO ABANDON THEIR CLAIMS OVER VAST TRACTS OF ISLAND TERRITORIES LAYING IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS OF SOUTH CHINA SEA .
WE ARE GIVING BELOW A PROOF AS TO HOW COMMUNISTS ARE MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN ISIS OR MUSLIM TERRORISTS

Evils of Communism

In 1917 a Communist government was established in Russia, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. Following that, Communist Russia became a fearsome world power with abundant nuclear weapons. Numerous other nations have fallen to Communist rule. What is Communism? What is the philosophy behind it? How does it differ from the doctrines of Christianity as taught in God’s Holy Word, the Bible?

Before answering these questions, we need to understand how murderous Communism has been. Normally when we think of a murderous regime of the 20th century, we think of Hitler and the Nazis, and the murder of six million Jews. As terrible as this was, six million is a small number compared with the victims of Communism totaling almost 100 million. Here is the breakdown:

Those Killed By Communists in the 20th Century
(By Country)

USSR (Russia) 20 million
China 65 million
Vietnam 1 million
North Korea 2 million
Cambodia 2 million
Eastern Europe 1 million
Africa 1.5 million
Afghanistan 1.5 million
                                     HATE COMMUNISM
Spanning from March 9, 1989 to April 27, 1992, the Fall of Communism (also known as the Revolutions of 1989) marked the revolutions which overthrew the communist states in various Central and Eastern European countries. The revolutions began in Poland, and continued on in Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania. The revolutions favored the extensive use of campaigns of civil resistance, demonstrating the opposition to one party-rule and pressuring for change. There was the violent overthrow in Romania, the Tiananmen Protest of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin wall, which was a gateway to the German reunification of 1990. The Soviet Union was disbanded by 1991, resulting in 14 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan) declaring independence from the Soviet Union. Communism was abandoned in several countries (Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mongolia and South Yemen), which caused the commentators to declare the end of the Cold War. However, the Post-communist states with a decline in living standards, birth rates and life expectancies after adopting a form of market economy. Only five countries maintained a monopoly on power: China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam.
After these revolutions, the electoral democracy political system had gained popularity, and half of the countries in the world started using this system.

With the fall of communism giving increased control to the people, much of the tight economic planning of the original authoritarian government began to fall too. This quick change in political and economic policies pushed many Eastern European nations towards Liberalist policies, as many of them moved towards more free-market economies similar to the economies of the Western world at the time. This step was only natural as the people wanted not just political freedom but freedom in general. The new political and economic liberalization left individuals to decide how they wanted to use their money in the economy, and many nations began large-scale international trade with one another to drum up business. Several nations from the dissolved U.S.S.R joined the European Union and NATO, and even more formed trade agreements with their neighbors that would have been strictly prohibited before. This increase in economic freedoms and globalized economies of originally communist nations pushed the global economy further towards Liberal economics.

This  website is promoted by the M.W.C.A. Institute , an anti-communist organisation with the sole purpose of containing the spread of communism around the world . The website shall promote democracy and human rights all over the world . This website shall provide full information regarding anti-communist organisations operating through out the world .

 MWCA Institute is a famous anti-communist organisation having it's international headquarters at plot n-3 , Lalbahadur Colony , Old Station Square , P.O.- Bhubaneswar-751 006 , District-Khurda , State- Odisha , Country- India . Any body interested in anti-communist activities may contact in our following email addresses :-

 
      Our landline telephone number is 91-674-2313421 . Our mobile phone number is 9437013421 . Country Code is 90 . You can also send SMS to us to  the above mobile phone number.
      We were very much perturbed due to  death of some police personels while fighting with armed communists ( also known as naxalites ) in India . We were extremely sorry to see the fate of some young women who were widows of police personels killed in anti-communist/anti-naxalite operations . When no body in India is prepared to give up their life , these brave police personels gave up their lives while fighting with communists . We salute the police personels who lost their lives in anti-communist/anti-naxalite  operations . We believe that communists are most dangerous people  in this world . During the past two months the death of police personels has been reduced to almost zero . It is well known that while American napom bombs have not been successful in Vietnam , but in a very peaceful manner , the communism has vanished from old Soviet Union , Albania , East Germany and entire eastern Europe . The people of the world are now proud for democracy and human rights . Like wise communism has vanished from west Bengal and Keral in India .  MWCA is now happy that peace has returned to naxalite affected states in India . The so-called rich people who were funding the naxalites out of fear are equally the enemies of MWCA , while the widows of police personels who lost their lives in anti-communist operations will continue to be friends of MWCA for their great sacrifice to the country . MWCA firmly believe that communism will soon come to an end in China , Vietnam ,North Korea ,  Cuba and Venjuala .
 
HERE IS GIVEN BELOW A LIST OF MOST POPULAR WEBSITES OF INDIA .
YOU CAN VISIT THEM BY SIMPLY CLICKING ON IT .
http{//anti-communistnetwork.angelfire.com 
         NOW YOU CAN BECOME A MEMBER OF MWCA , AN ANTI-COMMUNIST ORGANISATION FREE OF COST AND ENJOY A LOT OF FACILITIES FREELY . SO , WHY LATE ? PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING URLs AND GO TO MESSAGE BOX , FILL IN YOUR FULL BIO-DATA AND CLICK ON THE SEND/SUBMIT  BUTTON ON CONTACT PAGE :-

    

          




CLICK THE URL GIVEN BELOW TO VISIT OUR MAIN FACEBOOK ACCOUNT :

JUST BELOW YOU CAN FIND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO HAD VISITED OUR WEBSITE TILL DATE

powered by lycos
SEARCH:Tripod The Web